The Illusionist
September 6, 2006
When I first saw the preview for this film, it intrigued me and I have wanted to see it ever since. The talent on display was part of what sold me. Edward Norton is great (Fight Club is my favorite of his films), Paul Giamatti is a great character on the screen (Sideways is my favorite work of his so far), and Jessica Biel is engrossing to watch (I never actually saw 7th Heaven, but she was awesome in Blade: Trinity). I did not immediately recognize Rufus Sewell when I saw the preview or the film. Some of you may remember him from Dark City (a true classic).
The other thing that sold me was the obvious effort to create a period piece. The turn-of-the-last-century reconstruction of Vienna feels great, and there was an obvious attempt to create a sullen mood with the constant overcast feeling in the movie. The preview gave me an idea of the magic that they have in the film (ooohh magic) but it did not look cheesy at all.
The actual movie did not disappoint. The basic idea of the story is that a man from humble origins who grows up to be an illusionist (Norton) is in love with a lady of the upper class above his reach (Biel), who is promised to the Crown Prince (Sewell). The obvious romantic tensions that arise from this little love triangle culminate in several kufuffles (which I will not describe, because it is a mystery film after all and I don’t want to spoil anything). A police inspector (Giamatti) attempts to investigate and unravel the complexities of what is happening, with obvious mystery created because of the suspicions of the illusionist doing his antics off the stage.
The reconstruction of Vienna is very well done. I especially loved the shots of people walking through a hallway in the Prince’s abode which had a large collection of trophy heads littering the walls, with the antlers of the heads almost making a canopy above the head of those walking through it. It was a very interesting touch to have, and something that I had never seen before. I think that it helped to add to the ambience of the film, as well as maybe telling you something about who inhabited the house.
This film is pitched as a mystery and a romance, and I think that it is much more the former than the latter (which is what I hoped for). Right from the beginning there are magic tricks on the screen that have you wondering if the movie is portraying real magic, a trickster, or even an unreliable narrator. There are some scraps of explanation for some simple tricks shown occasionally, but for the most part the mystery of Norton’s character is felt by those watching the movie in the same way as those in it. I think that this is what makes the movie so compelling to watch, and makes it feel like far less than the claimed 110 minutes.
Any discussion of how things end will spoil it for somebody, and I think that you should be able to tell somebody what you thought of a film without spoiling it. I can tell you that the ending is reached in a very entertaining way, with several turns that keep you wondering what is going on. I have heard some people complain that you can see some of it coming (and I did see some of it coming) but this is a case of the destination not being as important as the journey, and the journey is enjoyable. I think that the viewer is meant to guess at what is going to happen but wonder how the characters will do it, and that is not always a bad thing. Are Bond movies not fun because Bond always gets away and never gets killed?
